refact fix: Flatpak

[jeevithakannan2]

Chris read before merging !!

Type of Change

• New feature
• Bug fix
• Documentation update
• Refactoring
• Hotfix
• Security patch
• UI/UX improvement

Description

• For the scripts in office suits to work fix: Common script paths #717 must be merged.
• Moved flatpak handling to common-script due to path conflicts when setup-flatpak is called from different tabs.
• Added apk package manager in case feat: Alpine linux support  #814 gets merged. If not remove apk package manager before merging
• This PR marks as a first step if flatpak was decided to be used as a secondary package manager in linutil
• The following error was reproduced by removing the pacman installation section, forcing the script to use flatpak for installation:

Note

This issue was originally identified on another laptop running openSUSE. Since no screenshots were captured in openSUSE, the workaround was applied to reproduce the error.

Testing

• Tested on arch and openSUSE, works as expected.

Additional Description

• This implementation is basic and can be improved in future.
• There is a lot of room for improvement here which can be implemented later in the future.

The idea mentioned in #705 (comment) was not implemented because of the following error

It occurs because setup-flatpak is also sourcing common-script and the root sourcing happens in the communication dir (zoom). It will try to access common-script in the application setup folder instead of trying to source the common-script from the root directory

Checklist

• My code adheres to the coding and style guidelines of the project.
• I have performed a self-review of my own code.
• I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas.
• I have made corresponding changes to the documentation.
• My changes generate no errors/warnings/merge conflicts.

[nnyyxxxx]

if any other scripts use flatpak be sure to include these changes

[nnyyxxxx]

DONT merge this yet, needs more discussing, this implementation is a bit dirty and i feel like we can just combine the flatpak command_exists with the reg one

[jeevithakannan2]

DONT merge this yet, needs more discussing, this implementation is a bit dirty and i feel like we can just combine the flatpak command_exists with the reg one

Combined both flatpak command_exists ready to be merged !!

[adamperkowski]

I'd wait with this until other PRs that may conflict are resolved.